Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
Economic growth doesn't vary by how quickly people are moved, it varies by how quickly goods are moved. The USA has the best air, sea, and land transportation of goods in the world. We've invested in roads, canals, airports, trucks, cars, barges, jets, and freight trains, with both public and private funds. It's why the USA ranks amongst the top economies in the world. And by the way, we've also invested money in moving people too over the air, on the sea, and on the land while investing in moving goods.
Eisenhower pushed the interstate Highway system in America because he learned important lessons during WWII. That moving war materials across America was difficult, that the railroads were limited in capacity and highways were inadequate for that job. So billions of public funds was spent fixing the public highways while the freights companies were left alone to run private railroads with private funds. That's the history, and the USA experienced rapid economic growth because of it, not in spite of it.
All one has to do today is look at our landscapes, all the cities and towns along Interstate Highways have grown over the last 50 years, the remaining towns and cities far from Interstate Highways have shrunk. If you disagree with hat observation, all I ask is do you have working eyes?
The question for funding the future.transportation in America that must be answered is what do we really need? If it is something different than what we have done the last 60 years, then we must arise with a new funding mechanism. The old fuel tax solution was designed for building public highways in a fair manner, it wasn't designed to fund railroads. Airways and Seaways have their own means of funding as well. But since railroads are not taxed, public rail investments have been at the expense of other transportation modes.
If we need to spend billions of dollars on railroads, let's find a means to tax railroads to fund public investments in railroads.  |
We are not talking about US freight rail. US freight rail while the most efficient in terms of tonnage carried, neither carries the most by tonnage (China) nor the highest percentage of efficiently moved finished goods (very likely Russia and China).
US freight is almost completely a private enterprise. Private enterprise is profit driven, and, has no social altruism. Outside of a very few examples, such as FEC railroad's efforts in Florida (and I am thinking it is an ploy to get government money to improve right-of-way) and a small operator of a line in Oklahoma that wants to run limited passenger service in exchange for purchasing the rail line (it's competing with BNSF which wants the line), I know of no occasion where any railroad line wants any passenger traffic to share it's lines.
Your solution is impossible.
The problem relates more to looking 20 years out at scenarios. What will the real cost of energy and resources be? How will changes in the cost of energy and materials affect cars, trucks, and, buses? What will the condition of highways be like? What will the cost of asphalt, cement, and, rebar be to repair highways, overpasses, and bridges? How will air transportation hook in to trips of less than 300 miles in this new world?
Inevitably, the government will have to become involved because we just do not have the money available in the rail industry to remotely cover any large expenses.*
For example, when BNSF talks about $5.3 billion for 2014 they are talking about spreading this over 32,000 miles in the US and Canada which boils down to a system average of $165,500 dollars per mile. That is nothing. Consequently BNSF prioritizes this money by route, so that the Chicago to LA corridor (which is going to take a huge hit when the expanded Panama opens up) for intermodal, the coal lines exiting from Gillette, WY, and, the oil car carrying lines passing through ND get the money.
There is not enough income to tax and taxing them to provide enough money over 10 years or so to upgrade and enhance 5,000 miles or so would drive them all bankrupt.
If you want to get the freight rail lines to carry passengers in addition to freight, you have to pay them off. If Amtrak upgrades a UP line between Chicago and Saint Louis for $1.5 billion of so, then UP will state upfront that more of it's traffic will run on the line. Likewise, when a metro transportation agency like RTD wants to run passenger traffic (and build a 2nd track) between Boulder and Longmont, CO, BNSF raises the bar to something like $700 million and wants to run (more) freight traffic on the line.
*******************
But, Electricron, almost all those improvements in infrastructure are getting old, those factories that lined the Interstates in metro areas are being abandoned, and very few new single family residences are being built anywhere near the roads. Most of this occurred when the Nation was rich, when the government could pay states 90% of the bill for building the interstate, and still have close to a balanced budget.
That, sir, was yesterday. And yesterday is gone (of course we can go out and drink beer and remember our greatness, but that does not change anything)
*The best source of tax, IMO would be on imported oil per barrel
The reality is that if you double the cost of steel, and, cement that the increase in price affects roadways far quicker than rail, which retains the approximately 5:1 - 10:1 cost per passenger and 20:1 cost per ton cost advantages over freeways. The escalation comparison factor for increasing fuel prices is similar.
Prev
Linear Mode
